"But I have to say its simply not reasonable to expect, for instance, a woman to not vehemently oppose a legislative assault on women's rights...."

Again I have to ask: where is it written in the Constitution that women willReceive contraception paid for by employer supplied insurance whether the employer's ( who is paying the majority of the cost up front) religion agrees with it or not.

You're not being denied any rights, just being denied a free ride at someone else's expense and at the expense of their constitutionally protected right of religious freedom.

With reguard to the Ayn Rand comment, you know I only think for myself, I hope I miss read that.

RM

Nothing Randian pointed in your direction. That was for 1ball, but don't misunderstand in either case. I believe the both of you to be serious thinkers, regardless of shared beliefs (or lack thereof).

With regard to your question:

I understand that certain people feel like their religious freedom is being violated if they aren't able to lord it over those who depend on them for a paycheck, but too bad. For some reason (that I'm sure there are four versions of in terms of backstory) the US ended up with employers providing insurance, and as long as this is the case, employers need to come to terms with this as part of their social contract as part of our little 200-year camp-out in North America.

Nobody gets everything they want, even the uptight creepy boss who disapproves of 'fornication.' He provides a job and pays (at least part of) a group health policy, and as a 'job-creator', part of his responsibility is to look past his personal hangups and allow employees the medical treatment and coverage that the insurance company has been contracted to provide. His rights to his religion are not being violated. Nobody is telling him he can't be a practicing Christian. But by having employees "on the grid" with benefits, his religion has no place in their employment, including (and especially, in terms of privacy) health care. If he doesn't like that, he can absolve himself of the responsibility of employees, or see if they'll accept cash with no benefits and cheat on his taxes, whatever works best for him.

And this is to say nothing of where we draw the line on what should be acceptable based on "religious objection." Until the doctor's prescription reads "sacrifice a blonde virgin", I'm calling bullshit on religious rights having any appropriate place in the system of private health care provision, as well as the veracity of the claim that freedom of religion is being breached in this scenario.

Where our worldviews part though is where yours goes next: that I'd be better served to not openly oppose any abhorrent movements within government, because that somehow sets forth a vortex of collectivism, whereby the more people fight for rights and decency in society and government, the closer we get to the shackles and gulags of authoritiarianism, replete with mandatory religious activity.

But how exactly are you openly opposing these abhorrent movements within government? By all indications, you're voting to get other people to buy you stuff while spouting partisan rhetoric. You want "affordable health care" at somebody else's expense. You're advocating and voting for centralization of coerced charity. That experiment has failed over and over again. I'll admit I'm partisan, but I'm partisan against repeating an atrocious experiment and expecting different results. I'm partisan against ignoring the nature of majorities and the governments they empower.

Quote:

I don't doubt the certainty with which you believe this..and it's not even that I reject it based on the fact that it sounds crazy on the surface (though I'm tempted) so much as the fact that I simply can't fathom this chain of events actually occurring outside of your head. A difference of outlook, to say the least.

I predicted that you would find a way to be dismissive. How many examples do you need? The cycle of wars that resulted in the EU wasn't enough? The USSR? The fact that medical tourism from Canada is required in order to prop up their Dystopia?

Quote:

And by the way, even if it was in Denmark, why wouldn't one speak up and opine based on what they feel is right or wrong? What do my current IP and mailing addresses have to do with it?

You're certainly free to speak up and opine all you want, but to think it's a worthwhile pursuit while voting against your interests is playing into the hands of your foes.

Quote:

Now, I realize that in your ethos, I'm not supposed to give a fuck about anyone else, pursuant to some sort of individualist philosophy of owning my own destiny, not owing anybody kindness because nobody has authority to obligate me, etc., etc., somehow resulting in a better world where everyone leaves each other the fuck alone completely.

Hyperbolize much?

Quote:

With regard to the issue at hand, the following is the meat of the Arizona Bill which is the original subject of this thread:

Quote:

Arizona Republicans have heard the call to up the assault on women’s rights and answered with a proposed new law that would give employers the power to request that women prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they are using the pills for non-sexual health reasons. Any employee who was unable to provide such proof–that is, any woman who was using birth control pills and had those pills covered by insurance purely as contraception could be fired by her boss if he or she disapproved.

Lesko is proposing a world where women contribute salary to cover health insurance premiums but still must ask her boss for permission to access health care. And should her boss disapprove of that health care then she risks losing her job over that preference.

You call this the meat of the bill and then you quote some propaganda that someone fed you. Are you a puppet? A parrot? We could solve this problem by getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance, but you're opposed to that, right? Because you believe they do something other than just pass the cost on or take a hit on competitiveness, right?

Quote:

So, some employer wants to make my lifestyle his business based on his ostensible "religious objections"? Fuck that.

If he's paying for it, why shouldn't that be his right?

Quote:

Once again, that's where the God-squad and I part ways. Religion has, over the years been used as cover for all sorts of human rights violations, and this, while not as severe as some, is just another in the long line. Surely we don't need to review this, so why is this tired argument allowed to hold any water?

Because the coercive power of government has been used against him repeatedly to increase his costs and damage his competitiveness. What goes around comes around. A By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) approach was used to limit his ability to make a living and that authorized a BAMN response. If he wants to use his religion as a cover for getting his costs down and firing entitlement minded workers, they gave him the moral go-ahead.

Quote:

I'm skeptical of the entire category of anti-welfare rhetoric to begin with, I think it typically reeks of racism at worst, classism at best,

Of course you do, because that's your cover for using the coercive power of government to force people to buy you stuff. That's might-makes-right in action. But apply a little bit of critical thinking. How useful do you think it is to accuse someone of racism or classism while attaching a suction hose to his bank account? Why wouldn't he respond by cutting off the outflow of funds BAMN?

Quote:

But when it comes to coverage of contraceptives? I'm no accountant, and I presume you aren't either, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how coverage of birth control, which is paid for through private insurance policies, furthers any public debt.

By choosing to look at the small picture when it's convenient, you're attempting to minimalize the effect of this "vortex of collectivism". From the POV of investors, business owners, etc., there is a continuous assault on their bank accounts. Taxation masquerading as regulation is a way to sell that assault to voters. Legally requiring insurers to provide something and legally requiring employers to provide insurance raises the cost of doing business for everyone. People get fooled into believing they're getting something for nothing when the government forces someone else to provide it. Suppliers raise the prices because the demand goes up. The natural resistance that creates slows the economy and results in lower tax revenues, which decreases the payment into a system that still keeps spending, thus increasing the public debt.

Quote:

It's really late, I just fed my kid, I'm perpetually several hours underslept...so maybe I really did miss the boat here. But you were saying the following:

Quote:It doesn't matter that you believe that you deserve what you want to take. The people who have what you want to take also have the power to deprive you of it and to punish you economically for trying to take it by employing might makes right. Their opinion matters more than yours because they have that power and they refuse to succumb to the belief that they have a moral responsibility to serve your purposes. The end result of economic centralization is poverty

For birth control pills?

Let's not be naive here. This bill is an assault on Obamacare which was an assault on the middle class sold to the voters as an assault on the rich. BAMN will be used to file the teeth of Obamacare. Realizing that would happen before causing it to happen would have presented an opportunity to give the religious nothing new to complain about. But of course, in order to minimize, you ignore what's really happening.

Quote:

but for what it might cost vs. what it symbolically means for women? We're not even talking about the same things, as far as I can tell, and frankly, it just comes off as justification of our institutionalized sexism to give a balance-sheet answer to a relatively low-cost issue such as this.

Of course it does when you accept the premise that you have a right to force others to buy you stuff. The people who would have to pay for it don't accept that premise. To them, "what it means symbolically for women," is just propaganda being employed against them.

Quote:

Okay, I know, I get it: if Arizonans don't like it, they should move, right?

Or live with it. Or fight it at the ballot box via referendum. It's their choice. They have no right to the money in somebody else's pocket, but if they want to pretend they do, they will experience cause and effect.

Quote:

You say that by tethering the states together too tightly, we cripple the flexibility of our regionally diverse economy. I know what you're talking about, and I understand in theory how that might work. What I don't understand is what that has to do with basic Americans' rights, both what we're afforded now and what's fair but not yet available to all or is in danger of being taken away.

You insist that "fair" is something that can be decided by a representative democracy. That is a logical fallacy. Fair will be decided by the people who have to pay. Trying to force your definition of fair on them BAMN will result in retributiory and punitive consequences that they believe are fair. Inherent in a might-makes-right morality is the acceptance of double standards. I can steal from him, but he can't steal from me. He's greedy, I'm not. The result is the entitled attitude of "He's responsible for fulfilling my biological needs, even though he did nothing to cause them, because I said so and I'm part of the bigger gang, and I can trump up the moral excuse that I'm only getting my fair share, and I'm going to take what I claim I need." To which they reply "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!".

Quote:

This protection of employer over employee, with hands-off governments that say "hit the road" to objections (no matter how unjust or unsavory) instead of righting them, all the while leaving the federal government bound and gagged in the closet, is your vision of America. I know it's well thought out in your head and that you truly believe in it, I just don't agree with it.

You repeatedly misinterpret what my vision is. Even if I shared your belief that you have a right to decide the definition of fair at someone else's expense, that would only mean we're both guilty of ignoring the question "What happens when we run out of Other People's Money?" The consequences of employing might-makes-right are inevitable. You can get away with it only so long as it is not felt by those who you depend on for capital and productivity. When they go on strike, you are screwed no matter how righteously you believe them to be demons.

When you quote propaganda, insist on rights that will only be met with retaliation, climb onto a high horse and preach about other people's obligation to fulfill your wants, you will be treated as you've demonstrated you deserve. When you earn better, you'll get better.

Quote:

If only we were all so wise and certain about the coming doomsday and it's cure, your work here would be so much easier and more succinct. On behalf of myself and the legions of naive, childlike members here engaging in the apparently hilarious act of giving a shit, I applaud your efforts.

What you're doing hardly rises to the level of giving a shit. You wish to take a shit on others. You don't see it that way, but they do. So don't be surprised when you look up expecting to see the Sun and instead see a shitstorm headed your way. What goes around BAMN comes around BAMN.My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust

True you have a record of supports, but now we cannot call your record flawless. You cannot choose when you will be pro equal rights and when not, it is contradictory. It says it by itself that you are in favor for equal rights when suits you.

1ball wrote:

I don't believe we can tolerate having group rights that trump individual rights.

So you are more concerned about religious employers than women right of a choice?

1ball wrote:

Minorities always lose when that happens. So I'm going to call it funny when I see absurdity. It falls short of hilarious, but it is all part of political theater and if you can't laugh at seeing people fail to learn from the past, then it's all too easy to get caught up in it.

Minority always looses, nothing is 100%. So we shall be concerned for every religious individual (in this case) instead of women right to have a choice?t Religion is individual thing, I don't care about other people believes and neither should state.

Blah, i cant be arsed with this topic because its so ridiculous. This proposal breaches moral and human rights, its economically unviable, and will never stand up against rational arguements and common sense. I didnt read the feed, i dont have time, but im assuming this is another one of Americas heavy religious angle, trying to coerce people to bow to their extremism. For a start, todays economic climate couldnt cope with a amendment like that, does anybody know how much it costs to raise a family? Society couldnt handle it, we would have homeless familys everywhere...I mean...seriously....

Then, dont even get me started on human rights breaches, theres too much list, just let the losers fuck off, i couldnt ever see a rule like that being put into effect, we're in the 21st century ffs..

hahaha, I like your post!

and no, this time is about money, boys just don't wanna give it away, giggling

True you have a record of supports, but now we cannot call your record flawless. You cannot choose when you will be pro equal rights and when not, it is contradictory. It says it by itself that you are in favor for equal rights when suits you.

If you have a case where you think I'm not supporting equal rights, present it.

Quote:

1ball wrote:I don't believe we can tolerate having group rights that trump individual rights.

So you are more concerned about religious employers than women right of a choice?

I don't believe either women or men have a right to choose to inflict a contraceptive expense on employers. I don't believe there is a group right to employment. I'm not particularly concerned about religious employers versus other employers, but I am concerned about the response employers will have when the value of remaining invested in the US economy drops. We already have a problem with job exportation, capital flight, decreasing attractiveness to foreign capital, decreasing attractiveness to skilled foreign labor and increasing attractiveness of emigration of skilled labor. Obamacare is being perceived as a huge tax increase on the middle class. Anything that can be done to file its teeth is being tried.

Quote:

Minority always looses, nothing is 100%. So we shall be concerned for every religious individual (in this case) instead of women right to have a choice?t Religion is individual thing, I don't care about other people believes and neither should state.

Employers are individuals. An individual is the smallest minority. An individual who is forced to buy contraceptives for someone else always loses. If he is forced to buy abortions or contraceptives or anything else that he is opposed to on moral grounds, he is far more likely to act out of spite against those who force him to buy it. Those kinds of unintended consequences weaken the economy. A weak economy disproportionately hurts women, ethnic minorities and low-skilled labor. The employer has no moral obligation to take broad economic effects into account when he decides a business issue.

Since neither men nor women have a right to employment, this is not a gender issue. A married man who has family insurance coverage for his wife and children is just as at risk of losing his job by forcing his employer to buy contraceptives as a single woman is.

Obamacare is very popular among some because it is a big federal power increase and because it attempts to transfer wealth by coercion from employers (an unpopular minority) and wealthy people (another unpopular minority with significant crossover to employers). These are two minorities that it is inadvisable to alienate. They have legal means of non-compliance that they will exercise out of concern for wealth preservation and out of offense at the notion that they must serve the purposes of others. My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

sprite wrote:

btw, my wife is on the pill because otherwise her periods are quite painful, and they were prescribed simply for that reason - tell me, can she expect to be covered or not? what about women who take them because their health dictates it, that getting pregnant can endanger their lives? what about women going through chemo and who are still sexually active, where their medication could effect the baby, or women with AIDS or other STDs? what is your stance on their right to BC coverage? this is an earnest question, btw

Yes, the bill state that exemption for medical reason if pills are needed as perscribed my a doctor for a medical condition other than birth control, your employer sponsored health can pay for them with no consequence to the employee work status. It's all in the bill.RM"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

"Did you read the story linked to in the original post? It's not about who pays for what. It's about the idea that the business owner can fire someone who doesn't share his beliefs, religious or otherwise. The litmus test just seems to be contraceptives. Do you think it's right for the boss to be in your medicine cabinet? "

If you read the bill, the actual law that got passed it says nothing of the sort!

If it were about shared religious beliefs it would never pass muster, i would be on your side and would be struck down so you have nothing to worry about. But you know full well it's not about that at all. It's about should someone be compelled to pay in part or whole for something they don't believe is right in the eyes of God. You know that tho.

You know that.

RM

If it's not about conflicting religious beliefs, then what is it about? You yourself say that if the employer doesn't believe something "is right in the eyes of God", then they should be able to either fire an employee at will, or limit their health coverage to whatever the employer deems necessary. What if the employer is a member of that sect that doesn't believe in doctors, instead thinking that everything should be left up to God's will? Where does one draw the line? Following your line of reasoning, a person could get a new manager promoted over them and suddenly have no coverage for anything, from hangnails to heart attacks. Not only is that immoral, but it's just stupid. And you know that.

You call this the meat of the bill and then you quote some propaganda that someone fed you. Are you a puppet? A parrot? We could solve this problem by getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance, but you're opposed to that, right? Because you believe they do something other than just pass the cost on or take a hit on competitiveness, right?

No offense, but let's interject some reality into this picture. Employers put themselves into the business of providing health insurance as a way of attracting a more talented work force. Claiming anything else is just wrong.

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

MrNudiePants wrote:

If it's not about conflicting religious beliefs, then what is it about? You yourself say that if the employer doesn't believe something "is right in the eyes of God", then they should be able to either fire an employee at will, or limit their health coverage to whatever the employer deems necessary. What if the employer is a member of that sect that doesn't believe in doctors, instead thinking that everything should be left up to God's will? Where does one draw the line? Following your line of reasoning, a person could get a new manager promoted over them and suddenly have no coverage for anything, from hangnails to heart attacks. Not only is that immoral, but it's just stupid. And you know that.

if a woman needs the pill to regulate her period, control flow or reduce cramping brought on by her minstrel cycle then the pill is NOT BEING USED FOR CONTRACEPTION! Therefore it's not a conflict with someone moral belief.

So many are trying to blow this out of proportion and fight the final battle right here when IF YOU READ THE BILL CAREFULLY, it is so small it's not worth the effort thats being exerted in this thread.

The inactment of this bill will be so small and effect so very few the A.C.L.U. hasn't even picked it up on radar.

RM "I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

if a woman needs the pill to regulate her period, control flow or reduce cramping brought on by her minstrel cycle then the pill is NOT BEING USED FOR CONTRACEPTION! Therefore it's not a conflict with someone moral belief.

So many are trying to blow this out of proportion and fight the final battle right here when IF YOU READ THE BILL CAREFULLY, it is so small it's not worth the effort thats being exerted in this thread.

The inactment of this bill will be so small and effect so very few the A.C.L.U. hasn't even picked it up on radar.

RM

And why again should she be forced to share the intimate details of her medical history with her employer? Should he be able to fire her if he doesn't like the results of her pap smear? Where does it end?

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

MrNudiePants wrote:

And why again should she be forced to share the intimate details of her medical history with her employer? Should he be able to fire her if he doesn't like the results of her pap smear? Where does it end?

She is not forced to disclose anything.

I'll say it again...READ THE BILL!

RM"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

No offense, but let's interject some reality into this picture. Employers put themselves into the business of providing health insurance as a way of attracting a more talented work force. Claiming anything else is just wrong.

As long as we're injecting reality let's add that they did this to attract workers when the federal government slapped wage freezes on them. And that was after the federal government legalized closed shops with the Wagner Act (one of the reasons they needed wage freezes) and before it amended that with Taft-Hartley to allow union shops and right-to-work states to help fix some of the mess it created.

I'm sure most businesses would love to be out of the business of providing group plans but still would be willing to contribute to premiums. The impediment to that is the federal government and the voters who think they aren't hurting themselves by attempting to stick it to their employer.

been browsing the forum posts and noticed this one and the one asking if the republican ticket can win the next usa presidential election. here is my worth that touches on both!

if the republicans do win what this post speaks of is exactly the kind of crap and that will become common place. where are the small government folks on these issues? why are they not howling about keeping the feds out of our lives over this kind of totally intrusive behavior? why are the republicans saying its about the economy and only succeed in passing legislation that in effect puts rights for women back 75 years?

As far as i can tell the ultra conservatives, of which only a very few republicans truly are, only want government out of their pockets and out of the way of them making obscene amounts of money. Very little of which, by the way, actually trickles down to the rest of us. they don't mind the government being all up in the reproductive tracks of women because all that womens rights have done is make it harder to keep the women folk in their right place!

the other place where the ultra conservatives want the government is all over the rights of the non-white folks in the usa. take a look at the states that are passing draconian legislation aimed at the non-issue of voter fraud! they want the government to do all it can to keep the brown people from voting since they typically have been voting democrat. once they have sufficiently duped them all into believing their lies then they'll let them vote.

sadly none of this speculation. take a look for yourselves at what the ultra conservative politicians have said and continue to say. unfortunately usa politics has come down to this: they that buy, steal and lie the best will be the victors. and this goes for both sides.

I'm sure most businesses would love to be out of the business of providing group plans but still would be willing to contribute to premiums. The impediment to that is the federal government and the voters who think they aren't hurting themselves by attempting to stick it to their employer.

I think most employers would want to have the freedom to buy in (or not buy in) to group health insurance plans as they see fit. Those that offer the best overall compensation packages would attract a different caliber of employee than those that didn't. It becomes a question of individual morality, though, when you ask yourself "As one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, can't we afford to ensure that each of our citizens has at least some form of basic health insurance?" We already treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay - just ask any ER triage nurse. But could it be handled in a more cost-efficient manner if all medical costs for the uninsured were run through some form of government-sponsored insurance plan? Would it bring the cost for treating the uninsured down? If so, would it then also tend to bring the cost for treating insured patients down?

I'm not savvy enough about the insurance world to know if it's even possible to untangle the Gordian Knot-like Flying Spaghetti Monster that our health care system has become. I do know one thing - the employer has no business trying to make medical decisions for his employees, like whether or not they deserve access to family planning methods.

Stop running on the hyperbole and learn. Information is out there, you don't have to duck for cover because someone yelled " the sky is falling!"

Educate yourself without fear and become someone to follow because you are worthy of leading.Be honest with yourself and don't follow the other lemmings off the cliff because they seam to know where they are going. Dismiss emotion and embrace logic, follow fact to conclusion and don't fear the truth. You will stand taller, be prouder and be be someone to emulate.. Not dispised as a parrot for others to afraid to be enlightened.

RM"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

Stop running on the hyperbole and learn. Information is out there, you don't have to duck for cover because someone yelled " the sky is falling!"

Educate yourself without fear and become someone to follow because you are worthy of leading.Be honest with yourself and don't follow the other lemmings off the cliff because they seam to know where they are going. Dismiss emotion and embrace logic, follow fact to conclusion and don't fear the truth. You will stand taller, be prouder and be be someone to emulate.. Not dispised as a parrot for others to afraid to be enlightened.

You don't really believe that RobinMaxwell760 has read the bill do you? How could he possibly answer your question? He gets his news exclusively from right wing sources, in this case that bastion of conservative bullshit The Daily News. I got my information from a right wing source too, of course, the Arizona House of Representatives.

The bill seems to say that an employer can refuse to provide insurance coverage for any procedure that he finds objectionable on religious grounds. It's hard to read "contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, accountable health plan or other entity offering the plan because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage," any other way than it's written. It's a law saying that the employer has an absolute right to refuse you medical coverage for anything they, the employer, feels is morally wrong.

There is no other way to read the bill. I read it in English. For all I know the people at The Daily News read it in some other language. Their article was written in gibberish after all. That's the only language Jan Brewer speaks evidently. The people at The Daily News were careful to quote only Brewer's opinion on what the bill meant. Like RobinMaxwell760 they couldn't bother with the truth.

Here's the relevant article: Section B, AZ House Bill 2625.

Notwithstanding subsection A of this section,an accountable health plan does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection A of this section if the plan's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection A of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, accountable health plan or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the accountable health plan stating the objection.C. Subsection B of this section shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. An accountable health plan, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the enrollee to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the accountable health plan along with evidence that the prescription isnot in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection. An accountable health plan may charge an administrative fee for handling claims under this subsection.

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

CoopsRuthie wrote:

You don't really believe that RobinMaxwell760 has read the bill do you? How could he possibly answer your question? He gets his news exclusively from right wing sources, in this case that bastion of conservative bullshit The Daily News. I got my information from a right wing source too, of course, the Arizona House of Representatives.

The bill seems to say that an employer can refuse to provide insurance coverage for any procedure that he finds objectionable on religious grounds. It's hard to read "contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, accountable health plan or other entity offering the plan because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage," any other way than it's written. It's a law saying that the employer has an absolute right to refuse you medical coverage for anything they, the employer, feels is morally wrong.

There is no other way to read the bill. I read it in English. For all I know the people at The Daily News read it in some other language. Their article was written in gibberish after all. That's the only language Jan Brewer speaks evidently. The people at The Daily News were careful to quote only Brewer's opinion on what the bill meant. Like RobinMaxwell760 they couldn't bother with the truth.

Here's the relevant article: Section B, AZ House Bill 2625.

Notwithstanding subsection A of this section,an accountable health plan does not fail to meet the requirements of subsection A of this section if the plan's failure to provide coverage of specific items or services required under subsection A of this section is because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, accountable health plan or other entity offering the plan or is because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. If an objection triggers this subsection, a written affidavit shall be filed with the accountable health plan stating the objection.C. Subsection B of this section shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. An accountable health plan, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit that require the enrollee to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the accountable health plan along with evidence that the prescription isnot in whole or in part for a purpose covered by the objection. An accountable health plan may charge an administrative fee for handling claims under this subsection.

Thought you weren't talking to me anymore since I refered to you as one of Stalin's "useful idiots"

Ah, I get it, you had your fingers crossed behind your back when you said it so it doesn't count. Because you would never go back on your word, right?

RM

P.S. remember, you can't respond to this....

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

Nothing I say is going to help you. Shield your eyes from the truth and be lead by the inferior of your choosing.

"I can only show you the path, you have to walk it"-Morphious in "the Matrix"

Good luck, pal. I'm not you teacher or parent, you're on your own.

RM

WTF does that second sentence even mean? I don't want to be "lead". I don't even want to be led. And I certainly don't want to be led by the inferior of my choosing.

You're the one telling us how harmless this bill is. Why is it that when I ask you to show me, you refuse? Could it be that the jury's still out on what the bill actually does? From the link you provided earlier:

Quote:

Lawmakers also changed the bill to specify that employers opting out of coverage for birth control could not make workers tell employers the workers' other medical reasons for using contraception.

Bill supporters contended the original bill would have required workers to provide that information only to health-plan administrators, not employers themselves, but critics of the bill disputed that.

So maybe the employers still have to provide coverage for contraception, as long as the contraception is for some "other medical reason" than birth control. If the worker is not required to tell her employer what that reason would be, then how would the employer even know the worker is on birth control to begin with? Since the issue is in dispute, is there some reporting requirement that isn't being talked about?

Did I ever ask you to be a parent or a teacher? I don't think so. You don't meet the measure of either one. All I've asked you to do is prove that you're not full of shit. I'm still waiting.

You don't really believe that RobinMaxwell760 has read the bill do you? How could he possibly answer your question? He gets his news exclusively from right wing sources, in this case that bastion of conservative bullshit The Daily News. I got my information from a right wing source too, of course, the Arizona House of Representatives.

(snip)

Here's the relevant article: Section B, AZ House Bill 2625.

(snip)

Dangit, Ruthie. I wanted to make HIM dig it out and post it here, so he could enrich us all with his own interpretation of the gobbledygook. And here you went and spoiled it for me...

OK, we all know that those inbred people are way out there in Arizona, and they now must be all Catholoc. Sorry don't mean to put anyone down, but it seems like all the stupid stuff lately has been from there. Just ignore them, and you folks from there vote in someone who cares and knows what this country was founded on,Well that's just my opinion, sorry if you don't like.

Employers are individuals. An individual is the smallest minority. An individual who is forced to buy contraceptives for someone else always loses. If he is forced to buy abortions or contraceptives or anything else that he is opposed to on moral grounds, he is far more likely to act out of spite against those who force him to buy it. Those kinds of unintended consequences weaken the economy. A weak economy disproportionately hurts women, ethnic minorities and low-skilled labor. The employer has no moral obligation to take broad economic effects into account when he decides a business issue.

Since neither men nor women have a right to employment, this is not a gender issue. A married man who has family insurance coverage for his wife and children is just as at risk of losing his job by forcing his employer to buy contraceptives as a single woman is.

Obamacare is very popular among some because it is a big federal power increase and because it attempts to transfer wealth by coercion from employers (an unpopular minority) and wealthy people (another unpopular minority with significant crossover to employers). These are two minorities that it is inadvisable to alienate. They have legal means of non-compliance that they will exercise out of concern for wealth preservation and out of offense at the notion that they must serve the purposes of others.

Health care system in USA is how it is, here, is slightly different. I can visit a doctor, he will take my blood, wrote down prescription for my medicine, wrote down referral and I will step out his office without paying shit. Then I will go to pharmacy, take my free drugs and visit specialist. Now, if I want to secure myself, I will pay additional 25 eur per month, just in case if I will be hospitalized, or needed specialist, I can do that. My country health care system is pretty damn good. And hear this, if I want a dentist, I can get one for free to!!! not just me all of us!! I have to wait 1-2 months, but if I have toothache, I can go to urgency dentist, hear this, for fucking free. How long is going to last like this, don't know, but I am 34, and this is how it is my fucking whole life. What is happening in your country, we call that Discrimination. But I am soo happy for Americans and how proud most are to live in the greatest country of all countries. "God save America, In God you trust" maybe he can help organize health system.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.